Andrew, I understand your early points about hearsay, it's hard to determine what was actually said or implied by the purported comments/innuendo/rumor.
On the other hand, I think that the people on this forum are savvy enough to apply the right amount of granular salt to the statement in any event. And I for one would rather make the credibility decision myself than have it suppressed somehow.
Also, I'm no longer sure what your position exactly is, after your last comments of
If some employee, or partner said what’s purported to be said, then it is what it is – right. Being in the business of security, and having made substantial IP investments, maybe it’s the sign of things to come.
...they do have a have a legal responsibility on behalf of the share holders to protect their intellectual property, and we may see that someday. I am confident they won't be giving IPVM advanced notice.
Here you seem to be stressing that the rumor could be true and not unexpected, assuming it was actually communicated correctly. Twice.
And if it were to be true, certainly that would be newsworthy, no? And with no official word likely to come, as you say, isn't this type of discussion valid for IPVM to address?